Saddam taunted by Shiites, tell them to "go to hell" and dies.

"Several hours after Saddam Hussein was hanged this morning in Baghdad, the state-run television channel, Iraqia, began to run edited video, without sound, of the run-up to the hanging. The video shows Saddam being guided up the steps to the top of the gallows, a scarf being put around his neck and then the noose placed over his head and tightened on his neck. Then it stops. This footage, about a minute long, was played and replayed over and over during the day, and quickly found its way onto all major television stations around the world.

Later this evening, another video of the hanging popped up, this time being shown on Al-Jazeera and Arabiya, two Arabic TV channels based in the Gulf. The new video was of poor quality, was very jerky, and had clearly been shot on a cell phone or some similar device from below by one of the two dozen witnesses to the event. It also had sound. The picture it gave of Saddam’s last moments was very different from the edited, silent version that the Iraqi government had released earlier.

There are five men in black face masks who are visible on the gallows platform around Saddam, acting as guards. As they guide him towards the trap door and put the noose over his head, they start chanting religious slogans with the names of Moqtada al Sadr (the head of the Mahdi army, accused of organizing death squads against Sunnis) and Baqr al Sadr (the father-in-law of Moqtada). Saddam, a Sunni, is outraged at this last-minute provocation, and tells them to “go to hell.” This is generally where the two TV stations cut the video, but on at least one occasion that we saw, Arabiya allowed the video to keep rolling: The cell phone camera is jerked down to the ground, as if the person holding it had to conceal the camera, then it is slowly raised up to Saddam again, and suddenly his body shoots down through the trapdoor. At this, the Arabiya anchor came on and made a scissors symbol with two fingers with a mischievous grin on his face, as if to say that they really shouldn’t have shown that, but so be it. A cynical voyeuristic ploy, nudge nudge wink wink…

However, the impact of this video could be quite significant. First, it will reinforce Sunni suspicions that the execution of Saddam was merely an act of Shiite revenge for decades of repression under Saddam. The building where the execution took place was expressly chosen because it was once used as a detention center by a division of Saddam’s secret police that was focused on the Shiite Dawa party. Some of the witnesses whom the government invited to the execution had themselves once been tortured in that same building. Indeed, Prime Minister Maliki, who signed the execution order the day before the hanging, is a long-term member of the Dawa party and had himself been sentenced to death by Saddam back in 1980 before fleeing the country.

Worse, it will also reinforce the fears of Sunnis that Maliki’s government is beholden to the Mahdi army, Moqtada’s militia. Executions are generally expected to be solemn affairs –- certainly not opportunities for thugs to score some final sectarian points before the “enemy” is disposed of. The video itself seems quite distasteful –- but it is informative to the extent that it reveals the political baggage that the current government carries on its shoulders. It does not add up to a pretty picture."

The Sunni will know that the Shia are in charge, that the killers of Saddam represented the al-Sadr faction. They will know that he was spared the skull and kneecap drilling, prior to his death, that condition that many Sunni insurgents are found with each morning.

The death of Saddam was not going to be part of a "healing" process. It's payback and intimidation time, in Iraq. The Iraqi Government has it's Shia and Kurd majority, the 80% Solution.

You would think that one of the American witnesses would have advised the White House it may not be a good idea to comment on this too quickly.

Bush said: 'Saddam Hussein's execution comes at the end of a difficult year for the Iraqi people and for our troops. Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror.'

Look, we let ourselves be convinced that these sorry scumbags were human beings. Okay, we were naive. They're primitive, tribalistic, murderous, opportunistic, treacherous, lying, Shits. They can never have civilization as we know it.

So, Fuck'em. Let'em kill each other. If there are any alive when it's over, we always have the option of going in and finishing off the job.

The Shiites have made Saddam look like Nathan Hale (American Soldier and Revolutionary officer who attempted to spy on the British and was hanged. 1755-1776), “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

They made his death easy. He went down cursing his enemies. He achieved martyrdom. It will probably cause another 500,000 or so dead on both sides.

When Saddam Hussein looked in disbelief at the over-sized noose that was fitted by masked volunteers around his neck, the man who helped to put it there by invading Iraq and toppling the dictator was soundly asleep at his ranch in Texas.

It was only nine o'clock in the evening in Crawford but George Bush was already embedded in the land of nod, with orders not to be woken until the morning.

The blithe indifference of deep slumber was the final snub to the dead man who once described himself as "Salahadin II", "the Redeemer of all the Arabs" and "the Lion of Baghdad".

Some might think that George Bush can't afford to sleep soundly these days with his approval ratings in the cellar and his policy towards Iraq in inertia.

But while the world stirred to comment, cyberspace buzzed with applause or condemnation and Cable television hyperventilated, George Bush soldiered on in sleep. He arose only at 4.40am, we are told, which is his usual time of rising.

One hour later he had a 10-minute conversation with his National Security adviser Stephen Hadley about the events in Baghdad.

Shortly thereafter the White House issued a pre-prepared written statement: "Today Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial - the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime."

The statement, which will not be complemented by a presidential turn for the cameras, betrayed no hint of gloating or crowing. It went on to say that "bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq".

On one level, the hanging of Saddam Hussein is the end of a dramatic family saga that has pitted the Bushes of Texas against the Husseins of Tikrit.

Failed alliance

It is a saga that started with a tacit alliance.

When George HW Bush was vice president, Saddam Hussein was still seen as a potential partner thanks to his status as the enemy of America's enemy, Iran.

It was in 1983 that Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched to Baghdad as a friend of the Reagan administration to shake the hand of Saddam Hussein and offer America's help against the ayatollahs during the Iran Iraq War.

Alliance finally turned into animosity when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and President Bush cobbled together an international alliance of Western and Arab states to remove him from Kuwait but not from power.

"The butcher of Baghdad" began to call President Bush "the viper" and George junior, "the son of the viper".

It was at that time that the famous Al Rashid hotel in Baghdad received an elaborate mosaic of President Bush "the criminal", which patrons were forced to stomp across on entering the lobby.

Two years later Saddam Hussein tried to get President Bush assassinated.

The White House has always maintained that personal grudges had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

And yet in September 2002, as preparations for war were well under way, George Bush the younger told a Houston fundraiser: "This is after all the man who tried to kill my dad."

Mafia rule

The personal side of this bitter family saga is over.

But even from his unmarked grave, Saddam Hussein will continue to haunt the Bush administration and define the legacy of the 43rd president of the United States.

Saddam had always promised to lure, fight and defeat the Americans in the cities of Iraq.

No-one thought at the time that this would happen after he had already been deposed.

But his prophetic threat is becoming reality, triggering a multi-headed insurgence that no longer fights on his behalf, and a vortex of sectarian violence that makes a conventional civil war look organised and coherent.

The former Iraqi leader is likely to haunt the Bush administration

The brutal bloodletting, ethnic cleansing and vicious fragmentation, in which American troops now find themselves embroiled, is also a legacy of Saddam's regime.

A quarter of a century of his mafia rule, in which tribal loyalties were lavishly rewarded and anything less was severely punished helped to rot the cohesion of a young and artificial country.

The extent to which Iraq is disintegrating has taken many Iraqis by surprise. It was grossly under-estimated by the officials who planned the occupation.

President Bush and his advisers have always liked to compare the birth pangs of Iraqi democracy to the emergence of a free Germany after the World War II.

Bloodletting

But what they were dealing with was not Germany 1945 but Germany in 1648 emerging from the feudal bloodbath of the 30 years war.

Another example would have been Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

So not even the few beleaguered optimists in the Bush camp, including the president himself, believe that the execution of Saddam Hussein will stem the bloodletting and allow America to plan for a graceful exit.

The sectarian violence in Iraq has reached its own alarming momentum, in which Saddam Hussein had been reduced to a walk-on part.

Nearly 3,000 US servicemen and women have already been killed

The White House may boast about the new rule of law but for many ordinary Iraqis justice comes in the form of death squads, torture gangs and rogue police road blocks.

These days the wrong identity card can get you executed. This is not the kind of justice that George Bush had in mind.

So now the noose has done its deed the Pentagon is, if anything, expecting a spike in the sectarian violence.

The US State Department has put its embassies on a security alert "to prepare for demonstrations and possible attacks".

And the American public, which had long expected the execution of Saddam Hussein is waiting with growing impatience to see how exactly the president will execute his heralded "new Iraq strategy".

More troops? More money? More hope? For American soldiers December 2006 proved to be the bloodiest month of a bloody year.

Sometime in the next 10 days 3,000 US servicemen and women will have been killed by a war that was declared "accomplished" in May 2003.

""The guards were dancing in front of him. When Saddam tried to sleep, they were going in, every 30 minutes. They said, 'We didn't let him sleep. We destroyed his personality'."

A little after 5am, a number of officials arrived at the jail. Saddam declined breakfast. He asked a guard for a cigarette, but was refused. Then, with his hands tied in front of him, he was led towards the execution cell.

In the small hall outside, he sat as a judge read the details of the death sentence imposed on him for crimes against humanity for the killing and torture of 148 Shia villagers in Dujail, following a failed assassination attempt in 1982.

In his hands the 69-year-old former leader held a copy of the Koran. There was nothing he wanted to say, he told the judge. He handed the book to one of the witnesses. "Give it to Bandar [a friend]," he said.

Saddam's hands were untied and re-tied behind him and his feet were bound. Then he was led, shuffling, into the execution chamber and passed to the four executioners, each wearing a black balaclava.

Catching sight of the cameraman who had been brought in to film his final moments, he started to shout: "God is great. The nation will be victorious. Palestine is Arab." He railed against Iran.

"He said he was not afraid of anyone," said Judge Moneer Haddad, one of the appeal court judges who had been invited to watch Saddam die.

"It was a terrifying scene. Saddam was in self-control. I was not expecting him to be like that. One of the attendants asked him 'Are you afraid?' He said 'I have never been afraid as long as I lived. I lived as a mujahideen and expected death any moment'."

The hangmen moved him forward, almost lifting him into place.

"We took him to the gallows and he was saying some few slogans," said Mouwafak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, who was present in the room. "He was very, very, broken." He said that Saddam turned to look at him. "He was frightened. It was clear in his face."

Saddam recited the Muslim profession of faith: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet." Then a hangmen pulled a lever, and the door opened beneath Saddam's feet. "We heard the cracks of his neck," said Judge Haddad."

AspergersGentleman said... "It is with great sadness that I announce the passing of Buddy Larsen, an American Internet Icon.

In an age of crotch-shots and snuff films, Buddy Larsen needed no frontal nudity nor shaky-cam beheadings to spread his informational self, like a bat out of Aristides loquacious hell.

He could pontificate with the pontiffs and jive with the jive turkeys; he was many things to many men. There was refinement and gravitas in his poetic waxing about the finer points of chaw and he would never begrudge a man who was too poor to afford an effete spittoon. He could speak of monetary policy and romance, of patriotism and showtunes. If he was a robot, he would pass the Turing Test in the most delightful colors!

God, welcome Buddy Larsen into heaven, and let his energy recouple into the Internet through divine bandwidth, unbeholden to physical constants."

Re Buddy... so who actually passed? Apparently the namesake, rather than the actual person at the keyboard?

I'm so embarrassed.

I can empathize with hitting "overload"... I once took a posting break from BC for something like 12 to 18 months - same reason.

Habu,

Buddy and I have shared a bit of back and forth over at BC in the past. When I first contacted him via email a short time ago, it because I wanted to get his opinion on a few ongoing world events without turning someone else's blog into my personal message service.

Unless his email program has labeled my mail as spam, he's got a couple of messages from me in his inbox. I'm content to wait until he can get back 'round to responding.

///////////

Watched Stone's "World Trade Center" this evening with Mrs Triton and a family friend. Not sure just what I think of it yet.

I don't need a movie to remind me of the evil we are facing... but the sounds of the jumpers striking nearby ground/roofs, etc, made that part of the whole event much more real for me.

There's no way to watch/hear that without seething inside.

I'm not going to be satisfied until the last jihadist is crushed from mortal existence.

///////////////

As for Saddam... the man allowed his thugs to rape thousands of innocent women and girls... he fed opponents feet first into wood chippers... he gassed civilians within his country's borders...

The so-called surge of troops into Iraq is a lie. As things now stand, at least two Marine regiments and an Army brigade will be held in-theatre well past their tours. For those interested, see Oak Leaf for more details. He addressed this cooking of the books two days ago, as I recall.

I criticize the President routinely for ineptness. I do not consider the President the anti-Christ. Rather, I believe the President to be a man in way over his head. Serving one full term as governor of Texas, honorable as that may be, does not prepare one for the presidency. Listen to Vice-President Cheney’s eulogy of Mr. Ford to hear a real leader at work.

To put things into perspective, by this point in WWI tens of millions of men had been used as cannon fodder. Because of the blogosphere, incompetent powers-that-be can no longer escape public scrutiny. We should all take heart; sunshine is the best disinfectant, and this will be a long, long war, like it or not.

May I earnestly apologize for an error of omission in an earlier reference to “very bitter young men”? I should have written “very bitter young men and women”. No disrespect was intended; rather, I am a creature of habit.

..."I criticize the President routinely for ineptness. I do not consider the President the anti-Christ. Rather, I believe the President to be a man in way over his head. Serving one full term as governor of Texas, honorable as that may be, does not prepare one for the presidency"

as rufus said, "look at his eyes." I may add: listen to the vacuous platitudes. But then I may have BDS. Problem is I've seen that face before.

This evening, I heard Mr. Cheney deliver a magnificent eulogy of Mr. Ford. Having become accustomed to a six word sentence having five missteps, I did a double take, as did my wife. Almost instantly we both asked, "And, why isn't this man the president?"

Because Mr. Cheney believed in what he was saying, the saying of it was done flawlessly, with absolute confidence and conviction. No teleprompter was required. Doubtless, the Vice-President (with an assist from Dr. Cheney) was solely responsible for content and crafting of this work of art.

Also remember reading his clear explanation, given in 1993 for why they thot it best not to drive to Baghdad.In a word, to avoid what we have now....but being he is not, and will not be president, (barring unforeseen) I can't see anyone on the horizon that would do a Lincoln on the Generals and tell the rest to get rid of their Liberal Lawyer touchy feely, CYA ways....Maybe Rudy after next attack.

Oak Leaf at Polipundit threw out some interesting stats to think about as we contemplate the “surge” of troops to Iraq. At the moment, the ratio of support troops to line troops, i.e. helpers to shooters, is 1.3:1. Although this is less than the historic average of 1.6:1, it means that adding 30,000 shooters would demand a commitment of about 70,000 troops in the aggregate. The US does not have 70,000 fresh troops to add to the mix. Consequently, what will probably be the reality will be the addition of about 13,000 line troops. However, since at least two Marine regiments and an Army brigade will be held in Iraq beyond the usual tour of duty, the actual surge will be only a few thousand line troops, plus their support elements, deployed earlier than originally planned. In short, very little will change from the present deployment.

Charles Krauthammer on Fox, discusses the botched execution of Saddam will turn to be a mistake. He said the trial showed a loss of control by the judges and most of the major trials should have been in the future, but with Sassam gone, the impetus is lost.

"Tell you what, instead of regular combat troops, can you give me every single sniper team available across the US Armed Forces for about 3 months? We need to have the ROE changed so we can get rid of the insurgent contacts, too, so that their networks can be degraded and pulled up by regular units, both US and Iraqi. A bit better UAV coverage would help and some back-end coordination between units, but that should be pretty easy to do. Basically, I need the guys who can reach through walls and hurt someone and has the patience to do it right... lots of them working together. I guarantee low Civilian casualties."

[...] "This is a fight of removing effectiveness and cohesion. To do that we are already isolating the insurgents and putting them into pockets to ID and scope out via INTEL. The faster way to do that is to get a pair of eyes that will always be watching them across all of Baghdad and give them time to do the best job they can until 'go-day'. All the Snipers will have picked their spots, deconflicted their fire zones, arranged for good patrols, set up their replacement schedules and become the eyes and ears of the entire setup, and the long arm that will reach out once the scoping is basically done. I need their eyes and patience, first, so the INTEL ops folks can figure it all out and set up the priority list. Then, on the go-day, it will be killing time. They will not know what hit them."

After Afghanistan and Iraq and other places that cannot be mentioned, you, as a Theater Commander *know* what this tool of warfare is and what it means. Stalingrad became a no-go because of the rubble and people hiding everywhere. They were not hiding from the tanks.

They were hiding from the Snipers.

And in a clean and undamaged city, the Sniper is King.

[...] This would not end the insurgency, but it would make keeping them *out* of Baghdad a whole lot easier as the militants, their commanders, their suppliers... all of that goes. And anyone fool enough to not be in the recognized Iraqi or MNF Uniforms and carrying a weapon... will find a sudden end to their lives. A bitch to get going, probably take 3 weeks just for that alone... but once the observing is in place, and a few hits here and there to take out the few 'oddballs' and let people know they are being watched, that should do it. Stop daytime ops against personnel and let them think the night is safe, while we harvest INTEL. Exhausting for the Snipers, true. But it should a be a job they will enjoy after CNN...

"The only other thing is that whatever the Snipers need in the way of equipment, they GET. Nothing is spared from this, but I doubt they will need much. You want the violence of the TV screens gone, I can deliver, but only after something no one has ever witnessed before, anywhere."

[...] some good Sharpshooters to hang around once the Snipers leave so that good eyes can still be had to make sure the insurgents don't get back in too easily. My regular forces can keep the peace pretty well after that with the few hot-headed instant radicals that still will pop up."

Definitely more sustainable than the surge, and therefore more plausible an option should allen's expose of the hypothetical surge being a fallacious placation ring true.

Has the surge been publicised for the sole purpose of appeasing those who would advocate Kagan's plan for declaring war on Iraq again, or does Bush have another plan concealed? Do we call his bluff?

Perhaps this "surge" will indicate a subtle but significant shift towards less policing adad thought money was something he could get from other people rather than save up for himself. He also thinks it is the way to impress people and he uses it to try to show that he cares people or to win their favor by spendin

"Tell you what, instead of regular combat troops, can you give me every single sniper team available across the US Armed Forces for about 3 months? We need to have the ROE changed so we can get rid of the insurgent contacts, too, so that their networks can be degraded and pulled up by regular units, both US and Iraqi. A bit better UAV coverage would help and some back-end coordination between units, but that should be pretty easy to do. Basically, I need the guys who can reach through walls and hurt someone and has the patience to do it right... lots of them working together. I guarantee low Civilian casualties."

[...] "This is a fight of removing effectiveness and cohesion. To do that we are already isolating the insurgents and putting them into pockets to ID and scope out via INTEL. The faster way to do that is to get a pair of eyes that will always be watching them across all of Baghdad and give them time to do the best job they can until 'go-day'. All the Snipers will have picked their spots, deconflicted their fire zones, arranged for good patrols, set up their replacement schedules and become the eyes and ears of the entire setup, and the long arm that will reach out once the scoping is basically done. I need their eyes and patience, first, so the INTEL ops folks can figure it all out and set up the priority list. Then, on the go-day, it will be killing time. They will not know what hit them."

After Afghanistan and Iraq and other places that cannot be mentioned, you, as a Theater Commander *know* what this tool of warfare is and what it means. Stalingrad became a no-go because of the rubble and people hiding everywhere. They were not hiding from the tanks.

They were hiding from the Snipers.

And in a clean and undamaged city, the Sniper is King.

[...] This would not end the insurgency, but it would make keeping them *out* of Baghdad a whole lot easier as the militants, their commanders, their suppliers... all of that goes. And anyone fool enough to not be in the recognized Iraqi or MNF Uniforms and carrying a weapon... will find a sudden end to their lives. A bitch to get going, probably take 3 weeks just for that alone... but once the observing is in place, and a few hits here and there to take out the few 'oddballs' and let people know they are being watched, that should do it. Stop daytime ops against personnel and let them think the night is safe, while we harvest INTEL. Exhausting for the Snipers, true. But it should a be a job they will enjoy after CNN...

"The only other thing is that whatever the Snipers need in the way of equipment, they GET. Nothing is spared from this, but I doubt they will need much. You want the violence of the TV screens gone, I can deliver, but only after something no one has ever witnessed before, anywhere."

[...] some good Sharpshooters to hang around once the Snipers leave so that good eyes can still be had to make sure the insurgents don't get back in too easily. My regular forces can keep the peace pretty well after that with the few hot-headed instant radicals that still will pop up."

Definitely more sustainable than the surge, and therefore more plausible an option should allen's expose of the hypothetical surge being a fallacious placation ring true.

Has the surge been publicised for the sole purpose of appeasing those who would advocate Kagan's plan for declaring war on Iraq again, or does Bush have another plan concealed? Do we call his bluff?

Perhaps this "surge" will indicate a subtle but significant shift towards less policing and patrolling, more border security and logistical support in light of the marked increase in support personnel.

Business relies heavily on the US Mail. Any interruption costs our economy tens of millions of dollars.

If you are not a business owner or accountant, you will not “get this” but I will try to explain. Most firms operate their business on a calender year with their books closing on December 31. “Unfortunately,” December 31 fell on a Sunday with Monday also being a Federal Holiday.

As a result, businesses were anticipating closing their year end books with the receipt of payments on Tuesday.

Sadly, a man with a Harvard MBA has thrown a wrench into that:

There will be no regular mail delivery or retail services at Post Offices Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007, as the Postal Service is closing to observe the national day of mourning for former President Gerald Ford.

The decision follows an Executive Order issued by President Bush that independent federal agencies close as a mark of respect for Ford, who died Dec. 26. Express Mail deliveries will be made Jan. 2. Regular retail and delivery service will resume Wednesday, Jan. 3.

Soooo, the People of the United States have been able to mourn on December 26, 27, 28, 29,30, 31 January 1 and those SEVEN days are not enough!!!!

We need another day of “mourning” that will cost American business tens of millions of dollars plus the cost of a “paid holiday” to Federal Employees!!!

Does anyone honestly think those Federal Employees will use today as a day of mourning???

All I know is the rest of America has gone back to work so that we can pay the tax due for an additional day of holiday to these federal workers while we are suffering insult to injury by losing interest on deposits we can not make!!!

This idea of “compassionate conservatism” is costing a whole lot of money so federal employees get a long weekend because that is all they care about.

President Bush, How about a “tax free day of mourning” for the rest of working America? -- Oak Leaf

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.